
Class JE_kXi_ 
Book ^ Jj_Li 



KANSAS-LECOMPTON CONVENTION. 




SPEECH 

>_ OF 

SENATOR 'DOUGLAS, OF ILLINOIS, 

ON THE 

PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE. 



Delivered in the Senate of the United States, December 9, 1858. l^''^^ '^'3 



On motion of Mr. DOUGLAS, -the Senate re- 
sumed the consideration of the motion, made by 
him yesterday, to print the President's message 
and accompanying documents, with fifteen thou- 
sand extra copies. 

Mr. DOUGLAS said : 

Mr. President : When yesterday the 
President's message was read at the 
Clerk's desk, I heard it but imperf^tly, 
and I was of the impression that the 
President of the United States had ap- 
proved and endorsed the action of the 
Lecompton Convention in Kansas. Un- 
der that impression, I felt it my duty 
to state that, while I concurred in the 
general views of the message, yet, so far 
as it approved or endorsed the action of 
that Convention, I entirely dissented 
from it, and would avail myself of an 
early, opportunity to state my reasons 
for my dissent. Upon a more careful 
and critical examination of the message, 
I am rejoiced to find that the President 
of the United States has not recommend- 
ed that Congress shall pass a law to 
receive Kansas into the Union under the 
Constitution formed at Lecompton. It 
is true that the tone of the message in- 
dicates a willingness on the part of the 
President to sign a bill, if we shall see 
proper to pass one, receiving Kansas 
into the Union under that Constitution. 
But, sir, it is a fact of great significance, 
and worthy of consideration, that the 



President has refrained from any endorse- 
ment of the Convention, and from any 
recommendation as to the course Con- 
gress should pursue with regard to the 
Constitution there formed. 

The message of the President has 
made an argument — an unanswerable 
argument, in my opinion — against that 
Constitution, which shows clearly, wheth- 
er intended to arrive at the result or 
not, that, consistently with his views 
and his principles, he cannot accept that 
Constitution. He has expressed his 
deep mortification and disappointment 
that the Constitution itself has not been 
submitted to the people of Kansas, for 
their acceptance or rejection. He in- 
forms us that he has unqualifiedly ex- 
pressed his opinions on that subject in 
his instructions to Governor Walker, 
assuming, as a matter of course, that 
the Constitution was to be submitted to 
the people before it could have any vi- 
tality or validity. He goes further, and 
tells us that the example set by Congress 
in the Minnesota case, by inserting a 
clause in the enabhng act requiring the 
Constitution to-be submitted to the peo- 
ple, ought to become a uniform rule, not 
to be departed from hereafter in any 
case. On these various propositions I 
agree entirely with the President of the 
United States, and I am prepared now 
to sustain that uniform rule which he 



asks us to pursue, in all other cases, by 
taking the Minnesota provision as our 
example. 

I rejoice, on a careful persual of the 
message, to find so much less to dissent 
from than I was under tlie impression 
there ^Ya3, from the hasty reading and 
imperfect hearing of the message in the 
first instance. In effect, he refers that 
document to the Congress of the United 
States — as the Constitution of the Uni- 
ted States refers it — for us to decide upon 
it under our responsibility. It is prop- 
er that he should have thus referred it 
to us as a matter for Congressional action, 
and not as an Administration or Execu- 
tive measure, for the reason that the 
Constitution of the United States says 
that " Congress may admit new States 
into the Union." Hence we find the 
Kansas question before us now, not as 
an Administration measure, not as an 
Executive measure, but as a measure 
coming before us for our free action, 
without any recommendation or interfer- 
ence, directly or indirectly, by the Ad- 
ministration now in possession of the 
Federal Government. Sir, I propose to 
examine this question calmly and fairly, 
to see whether or not we can properly 
receive Kansas into the Union with the 
Constitution formed at Lecompton. 

The President, after expressing his 
regret and mortification and disappoint- 
ment, that the Constitution had not been 
submitted to the people in pursuance of 
his instructions to Gkrvernor Walker, 
and in pursuance of Governor Walker's 
assurances to the people, says, however, 
that by the Kansas- Nebraska act the 
Slavery question only was required to 
be referred to the people, and the re- 
mainder of the Constitution was not thus 
required to be submitted. He acknowl- 
edges that, as a general rule, on gen- 
eral principles, the whole Constitution 
should be subraitteil ; but, according to 
his understanding of the organic act of 
Kansas, there was an imperative obliga- 
tion to submit the Slavery question for 
their approval or disapproval, but no obli- 
gation to submit the entire Constitution. 
In other words, he regards the organic 
act, the Nebraska bill, as having made an 



exception of the Slavery clause, and 
provided for the disposition of that ques- 
tion in a mode different from that in 
which other domestic or local, as con- 
tradistinguished from Federal questions, 
should be decided. Sir, permit me to 
say, with profound respect for the Pres- 
ident of the United States, that I con- 
ceive that on this point he has committed 
a fundamental error, an error which lies 
at the foundation of his whole argument 
on this matter. I can well understand 
how til at distinguished statesman came 
to fall into this error. He was not in 
the country at the time the Nebraska 
bill was passed ; he was not a party to 
the controversy and the discussion that 
took place during its passage. He was 
then representing the honor and the 
dignity of the country with great wisdom 
and distinction at a foreign Court. Thus 
deeply engrossed, his whole energies 
were absorbed in conducting great dip- 
lomatic questions, that diverted his at- 
tention from the mere Territorial ques- 
tions and discussions then going on in 
the Senate and the House of Represent- 
atives, and before the people at home. 
Under these circumstances, he may well 
have fallen into an error, radical and 
fundemental as it is, in regard to the 
object of the Nebraska bill and the 
principle asserted in it. 

Now, sir, what was the principle 
enunciated by the authors and support- 
ers of that bill, when it was brought 
forward ? Did we not come before tho 
country and say that we repealed the 
Missouri restriction for the purpose of 
substituting and carrying out as a gen- 
eral rule the great principle of self-gov- 
ernment, which left the people of each 
State and each Territory free to form 
and regulate their domestic institutions 
in their own way, subject only to the 
Constitution of the United States ? In 
support of that proposition, it was argu- 
ed here, and I have argued it wherever 
I have spoken in various States of the 
Union, at home and abroad, everywhere 
I have endeavored to prove that there 
was no reason why an exception should 
be made in regard to the Slavery ques- 
tion. I have appealed to the people, if 



we did not all agree, men of all parties, 
that all other local and domestic ques- 
tions should be submitted to the people. 
I said to them, " We agree that the 
people shall decide for themselves what 
kind of a judiciar}' system they will 
have ; we agree that tlie people shall 
decide what kind of a school system they 
will establish ; we agree that the people 
shall determine for themseves what kind 
of a banking system they will have, or 
whether they will have any banks at all ; 
we agree that the people may decide for 
themselves what shall be the elective 
franchise in their respective States ; they 
shall decide for themselves what shall 
be the rule of taxation and the princi- 
ples upon which their finance shall be 
regulated ; we agree that they may de- 
cide for themselves the relations between 
husband and wife, parent and child, 
guardian and Avard ; and why should we 
not then allow them to decide for them- 
selves the relations between master and 
servant ? Why make an exception of 
the Slavery question, by taking if out of 
that great rule of self-government which 
applies to all the other relations of 
life? " The very first proposition in 
the Nebraska bill was to show that the 
Missouri restriction, prohibiting the 
people from deciding the Slavery ques- 
tion for themselves, constituted an ex- 
ception to a general rule, in violation of 
the principle of self-government ; and 
hence that that exception should be 
repealed, and the Slavery question, like 
all other questions, submitted to the 
people, to be decided for themselves. 

Sir, that was the principle on which 
the Nebraska bill was defended by its 
friends. Instead of making the Slavery 
question an exception, it removed an 
odious exception which before existed. 
Its whole object was to abolish that 
odious exception, and make the rule gen- 
eral, universal in its application to all 
matters which were local and domestic, 
and not National or Federal. For this 
reason was the language employed wliich 
the President has quoted ; that the eighth 
section of the Missouri act, commonly 
called the Missouri compromise, was re- 
pealed, because it was repugnant to the 



principle of non-intervention, establish- 
ed by the compromise measures of 1850, 
" it being the true intent and meaning of 
this act, not to legislate Slavery into any 
Territory or State, nor to exclude it 
therefrom, but to leave the people thereof 
perfectly free to form and regulate their 
domestic institutions in their own way, 
subject only to the Constitution of the 
United States." We repealed the Mis- 
souri restriction because that was con- 
fined to Slavery. That was the only ex- 
ception there was to the general princi- 
ciple of self-government. That excep- 
tion was taken away for the avowed and 
express purpose of making the rule of 
self-government general and universal, so 
that the people should form and regulate 
all their domestic institutions in their 
own way. 

Sir, what would this boasted principle 
of popular sovereignty have been worth, 
if it applied only to the negro, and did 
not extend to the white man? Do you 
think we could have aroused the sympa- 
thies and the patriotism of this broad 
Republic, and have carried the Presiden- 
tial election last year, in the face of a 
tremendous opposition, on the principle 
of extending the right of self-govern- 
ment to the negro question, but denying 
it as to all the relations affecting white 
men? No, sir. We aroused tiie pa- 
triotism of the country and carried the 
election in defence of that great princi- 
ple, which allowed all white men to form 
and regulate their domestic institutions 
to suit themselves — institutions applica- 
ble to white men as well as to black 
men — institutions applicable to freemen 
as well as to slaves — institutions con- 
cerning all the relations of life, and not 
the mere paltry exception of the Slavery 
question. Sir, I have spent too much 
strength and breath, and health, too, to 
establish this great principle in the pop- 
ular heart, now to see it frittered away by 
bringing it down to an exception that 
applies to the negro, and does not ex- 
tend to the benefit of the white man. 
As I said before, I can well imagine how 
tlie distinguished and eminent patriot 
and statesman now at the head of the 
Government fell into the error — for error 



it is, radical, fundamental — and, if per- 
severed in, i^ubveriiivc of that platform 
upon which he was elevated to the Pres- 
idency of the United States. 

Then, if the President be right in say- 
ing that, by the Nebraska bill, the Sla- 
very question must be submitted -to the 
people, it follows inevitably that every 
other clause of the Constitution must 
also be submitted to the people. The 
Nebraska bill said that the people should 
be left " perfectly free to form and reg- 
ulate their domestic institutions in their 
own way " — not the Slavery question, 
not the Maine-liquor-law question, not 
the banking question, not the school 
question, not the railroad question, but 
" their domestic institutions," meaning 
each and all the questions Avhich are lo- 
cal, not National — State, not Federal. I 
arrive at the conclusion that the prin- 
ciples enunciated so boldly and en- 
forced with so much ability by the Pres- 
ident of the United States, require us, 
out of respect to him and the platform 
on which he was elected, to send this 
whole question back to the people of 
Kansas, and enable them to say whether 
or not the Constitution which has been 
framed, each and every clause of it, meets 
...their approbation. 

The President, in his message, has 
.'raj ade an unanswerable argument in favor 
of the principle which requires this ques- 
tict'i to be sent back. It is stated in the 
imeB, sage, with more clearness and force 
tha«i any language which I can com- 
mand' ; but I can draw your attention to 
it, an d refer you to the argument in the 
messa ge, hoping that you will take it as 
; a patit of my speech — as expressing my 
ideftitriore forcibly than I am able to ex- 
press it. The President says that a 
questit Ji of great interest, like the Sla- 
very <ituestion, cannot be fairly decided 
by a flr)nvention of delegates, for the 
reason iJiat the delegates are elected in 
districti-, a nd in some districts a delegate 
is elcctoi by a small majority; in others, 
by an avtirv^helming majority ; so that it 
often hcppons that a majority of the 
delegates arc one way, while a majority 
of the people are the other way ; and 
> therefore it would be unfair, and incon- 



sistent with the great principle of popu- 
lar sovereignty, to allow a body of dele- 
gates, not representing the popular voice, 
to establish domestic institutions for the 
mass of the people. This is the Presi- 
dent's argument t(; show that you can- 
not have a fair and honest decision with- 
out submitting it to the popular vote. 
I'he same argument is conclusive with 
regard to every other question, as well 
as with regard to Slavery. 

But, Mr. President, it is intimated in 
the message, that although it was an un- 
fortunate circumstance, much to be re- 
gretted, that the Leeompton Convention 
did not submit the Constitution to the 
people, yet perhaps it may be treated 
as regular, because the Convention was 
called by a Territorial Legislature which 
had been repeatedly recognised by the 
Congress of the United States as a legal 
body. I beg Senators not to fall into 
an error as to the President's meaning on 
this point. He does not say, ho does 
not mean, that this Convention had ever 
been recognised by the Congress of the 
United States as legal or valid. On 
the contrary, he knows, as we here know, 
that during last Congress I reported a 
bill from the Committee on Territories, 
to authorize the people of Kansas to as- 
semble and form a Constitution for them- I 
selves. Subsequently, the Senator from f 
Georgia [Mr. Toombs] brouglit forward 
a substitute for my bill, which, after 
having been modified by him and myself 
in consultation, was passed by the Sen- 
ate. It is known in the country as 
" the Toombs bill." It authorized the 
people of Kansas Territory to assemble 
in Convention and form a Constitution, 
preparatory to their admission into the 
Union as a State. That bill, it is well 
known, was defeated in the House of 
Representatives. It matters not, for 
the purpose of this argument, what was 
the reason of its defeat. Whether the 
reason was a political one ; whether it 
had reference to the then existing con- 
test for the Presidency ; whether it was 
to keep open the Slavery question ; 
whether it was a conviction that the bill 
would not be fairly carried out ; whether 
it was because there were not people 



enough in Kansas to justify the forma- 
tion of a State — no matter what the 
reason was, the House of Representa- 
tives refused to pass that hill, and thus 
denied to the people of Kansas the right 
to form a Constitution and State Gov- 
ernment at this time. So far from the 
Congress of the United States having 
sanctioned or legalized the Convention 
which assembled at Lecompton, it ex- 
pressly withheld its assent. The assent 
has not been given, either in express 
terms or by implication ; and being with- 
held, this Kansas Constitution has just 
such validity and just such authorit}' as 
the Territorial Legislature of Kansas 
could impart to it without the assent 
and in opposition to the known will of 
Congress. 

Now, sir, let me ask what is the ex- 
tent of the authority of a Territorial 
Legislature, as to calling a Constitu- 
tional Convention, without the assent of 
Congress? Fortunately this is not a 
new question ; it does not now arise for 
the first time. When the Topeka Con- 
stitution was presented to the Senate, 
nearly two years ago, it was referred to 
the Committee on Territories, with a va- 
riety of measures relating to Kansas. 
The committee made a full report upon 
the whole subject. That report review- 
ed all the irregular cases which had oc- 
curred in our history in the admission of 
new States. The committee acted on 
the supposition, that whenever Congress 
had passcMl an enabling act authorizing 
the people of a Territory to form a State 
Constitution, the Convention was regu- 
lar, and possessed all the authority which 
Congress had delegated to it ; but when- 
ever Congress had failed or refused to 
pass an enabling act, the proceeding was 
irregular and void, unless vitality was 
imparted to it by a subsequent act of 
Congress, adopting and confirming it. 
The friends of the Topeka Constitution 
insisted, that although their proceedings 
Averc irregular, they were not so irregu- 
lar but tliat Congress ■could cure the 
en"r by admitting Kansas with that 
Constitution. They cited a variety of 
cases, amongst others the Arkansas case. 
In my report, sanctioned by every mem- 



ber of the Committee on Territories ex- 
cept the Senator from Vermont, [Mr. 
CoLLAMER,] I revicAvcd the Arkansas 
case as well as the others, and aflirnied 
the doctrine established by Gfu. Jack- 
son's Administration, and enunciated in 
the opinion of Mr. Attorney General 
Butler, a part of which opinion was 
copied into the report and published to 
the country at the time. 

Now, sir, in order to ascertain Avhat 
we understood on the 12th of March, 
1856 — little more than a year and a 
half ago — to be the true doctrine on 
this point, let me call your attention to 
the opinion of Mr. Butler in the Arkan- 
sas case. The Governor of the Terri- 
tory of Arkansas sent a printed address 
to President Jackson, in which he stated 
that he had been urged to call together 
the Legislature of the Territory of Ar- 
kansas, for the purpose of allowing them 
to call a Convention to form a Constitu- 
tion, preparatory to their admission into 
the Union as a State. The Governor 
stated that, in his opinion, the Legisla- 
ture had no power to call such a Con- 
vention without the assent of Congress 
first had and obtained ; but he asked in- 
structions on that point. The President 
referred the case to the Secretary of 
State, and he asked for the advice of 
the Attorney General, whose opkiion 
was given, and adopted as the plan of 
action, and communicated to the Gov- 
ernor of Arkansas for his instruction. 
I will read some extracts from that 
opinion : 

" Consequently, it is not in the power 
' of the General Assembly of Arkansas 
' to pass any law for the ])urpose of 
' electing members to form a Constitu- 
' tion and State Government, or to do 
' any other act, directly or indinctly, to 
' create such new Goveriunent. Every 
' such law, even though it were approved 
' by the Government of the Territory, 
' would be null and void. If passed by 
' them, notwithstanding his veto, by a 
' vote of two-thirds of each branch, it 
' would still be equally void. 

" If I am right in the foregoing opin- 
' ion, it will then follow that the course 
' of the Governor, in declining to call 



6 



' together the Territorial Legislature 
' for the purpose in question, was such 
' as his legal duties required ; and that 
' the views he has expressed in his pub- 
' lie address, and also in his oiScial coin- 
' municatiou to yourself, so far as they 
' indicate an intention not to sanction or 
' concur in any legislative or other pro- 
' ceedings towards the formation of a 
' State Government until Congress shall 
' have authorized it, are also correct." 

That is what I have understood to be 
the settled doctrine as to the author- 
ity of a Territorial Legislature to call a 
Convention without the consent of Con- 
gress first had and obtained. The rea- 
soning is very clear and palpable. A 
Territorial Legislature possesses Avhat- 
evor power its organic act gives it, and 
no more. The organic act of Arkansas 
provided that the legislative power should 
be vested in the Territorial Jjcgislature, 
the same as the organic act of Kansas 
provides that the legislative power and 
authority shall be vested in the Legisla- 
ture. But what is the extent of that 
legislative power? It is to legislate for 
that Territory under the organic act, 
and in obedience to it. It does not in- 
clude any power to subvert the organic 
act under Avhich it was brought into 
existence. It has the power to protect 
it, the power to execute it, the power to 
carry it into effect ; but it has no power 
to subvert, none to destroy ; and hence 
that power can only be obtained by ap- 
plying to Congress, the same authority 
which created the Territory itself. But 
while the Attorney General decided, 
with the approbation of the Administra- 
tion of General Jackson, that the Terri- 
torial Legislature had no power to call 
a Convention, and that its action was 
void if it did, he went further : 

" No law has yet been passed by Con- 
* gress which either expressly or im- 
' pliedly gives to the peojile of Arkansas 
' the authority to form a State Govern- 
' ment." 

Nor has there been any in regard to 
Kansas. The two cases are alike thus 
far. They are alike in all particulars, 
so far as the question involving the le- 
gality and the validity of the Lecompton 



Convention is concerned. The opinion 
goes on to say : 

" For the reasons above stated, I am 
' therefore of opinion that the inhabit- 
' ants of that Territory have not at 
' present, and that they cannot acquire 
' otherwise than by an act of Congress, » 
' the right to form such a Government." 
General Jackson's Administration took 
the ground that the people of Arkansas, 
by the authority of the Territorial 
Legislature, had not the power to hold\^ 
a Convention to form a Constitution, 
and could not acquire it from any source 
whatever except from Congress. While, 
therefore, the legislative act of Arkan- 
sas was held to be void, so far as it as- 
sumed authority to authorize the calling 
of a Convention to form a Constitution, 
yet they did not hold, in those days, that 
the people could not assemble and frame 
a Constitution in the form of a petition. 
I will read the rest of the opinion, in 
order that the Senate may understand 
precisely what was the doctrine on this 
subject at that day, and what the Com- 
mittee on Territories understood to be 
the doctrine on this subject in March, 
1856, when we put forth the Kansas 
report as embodying what we Nebraska 
men understood to be our doctrine at 
that time. Here it is. This was copied 
into that report : 

" But I am not prepared to say that 
' all proceedings on this subject, on the 
' part of the citizens of Arkansas, will 
' be illegal. They undoubtedly possess 
' the ordinarv privileges and immunities 
' of citizens of the United States. Among 
' these is the right to assemble and to 
' petition the Government for the re- 
' dress of grievances. In the exercise 
' of this right, the inhabitants of Arkan- 
' sas may peaceably meet together in 
' primary assemblies, or in conventions 
' chosen'by such assemblies, for the pur- 
' pose of petitioning Congress to abro- 
' gate the Territorial Government, and 
' to admit them into the Union as an in- 
' dependent State. The ])articular form 
' which they may give in their petition 
' cannot be material, so long as they 
' confine themselves to the mere right of 
' petitioning, and conduct all their pro- 



ceedings in a peaceable manner. And 
as the power of Congress over the 
whole subject is plenary and unlimit- 
ed, THEY MAY ACCEPT ANY 
CONSTITUTION, HOWEVER 
FRAMED, WHICH IN THEIR 
JUDGMENT MEETS THE SENSE 
OF THE PEOPLE TO BE AF- 
FECTED BY IT. If, therefore, the 
citizens of Arkansas think proper to 
accompany their petition with a writ- 
ten Constitution, framed and agreed 
on by their primary assemblies, or by 
a convention of delegates chosen by 
such assemblies, I perceive no legal 
objection to their power to do so, nor 
any measures which may be taken to 
collect the sense of the people in re- 
spect to it ; provided, always, that 
such measures be commenced and 
prosecuted in a peaceable manner, in 
strict subordination to the existing 
Territorial Government, AND IN 
ENTIRE SUBSERVIENCY TO 
THE POWER OF CONGRESS 
TO ADOPT, REJECT, OR DIS- 
REGARD THEM, AT THEIR 
PLEASURE." 

While the Legislature of Arkansas 
had no power to create a Convention to 
frame a Constitution, as a legal consti- 
tutional body, yet if the people chose to 
assemble under such an act of the Legis- 
lature, for the purpose of petitioning for 
redress of grievances, the assembhage 
was not illegal ; it was not an unlawful 
assemblage ; it was not such an assem- 
blage as the military power could be 
used to disperse, for they had a riglit 
under the Constitution thus to assemble 
and petition. But if they assumed to 
themselves the right or the power to 
make a Government, that assumption 
was an act of rebellion, which General 



put 
the 



Jackson said it was his duty to 
down with the military force of 
country. 

If you apply these principles to the 
Kansas Convention, you find that it had 
no power to do any act as a Convention 
forming a Government ; you find that 
the act calling it was null and void from 
the beginning; you find that the Legis- 
lature could confer no power whatever 



on the Convention. That Convention 
was simply an assemblage of peaceable 
citizens, under the Constitution of the 
United States, petitioning for the redress 
of grievances, and, thus assembled, had 
the right to put their petition in the 
form of a Constitution if they chose; 
but still it was only a petition — having 
the force of a petition — which Congress 
could accept or reject, or dispose of as 
it saw proper. That is what I under- 
stand to be just the extent of the power 
and authority of this Convention as- 
sembled at Lecompton. It was not an 
unlawful assemblage like that held at 
Topeka; for the Topeka Constitution 
was made in opposition to the Terri- 
torial law, and, as I thought, intended 
to subvert the Government without the 
consent of Congress, but, as contended 
by their friends, not so intended. If 
their object was to subvert it without 
the consent of Congress, it was an act 
of rebellion, Avhich ought to have been 
put down by force. If it was a peace- 
able assemblage, simply to petition, 
and abide the decision of Congress on 
the petition, it was not an unlawful as- 
semblage. I hold, however, that it was 
an unlawful assemblage. I hold that 
this Lecompton Convention was not an 
unlawful assemblage ; but, on the other 
hand, I hold that they had no legal 
power and authority to establish a Gov- 
ernment. They had a right to petition 
for a redress of grievances. They had 
a right in that petition to ask for the 
change of Government from a Terri- 
torial to a State Government. They 
had a right to ask Congress to adopt the 
instrument wiiich they sent to us as 
their Constitution ; and Congress, if it 
thought that paper embodied the will of 
the people of the Territory, fairly ex- 
pressed, might, in its discretion, accept 
it as a Constitution, and admit them in- 
to the Union as a State ; or if Congress 
thought it did not embody the will of the 
people of Kansas, it might reject it'; or 
if Congress thought it was doubtful 
whether it did embody the will of the 
people or not, then it should send it 
back, and submit it to the people, to have 
that doubt removed, in order that the 



8 



popular voice, whatever it might he, 
should prevail in the Constitution under 
"vrhich that people were to live. 

So far as the act of the Territorial 
Legislature of Kansas, calling this Con- 
vention, was concerned, I have always 
been under the impression that it was 
fair and just in its provisions. I have 
always thought the people should have 
gone together, en masse, and voted for 
delegates, so that the voice expressed by 
the Convention should have been the un- 
questioned and united voice of the peo- 
ple of Kansas. I have always thought 
that those who staid away from that 
election stood in their own light, and 
should have gone and voted, and should 
have I'urnished their names to be put on 
the registered list, so as to be voters. I 
have always held that it Avas their own 
fault that they did not thus go and vote ; 
but yet, if they chose, they had a right 
to stay away. They had a right to say 
that that Convention, although not an 
unlawful assemblage, is not a legal Con- 
vention to make a Government, and 
hence we are under no obligation to go 
and express any opinion about it. They 
had a right to say, if they chose, "We 
will stay away until we see the Con- 
stitution they shall frame, the petition 
they shall send to Congress ; and when 
they submit it to us for ratification, we 
will vote for it if we like it, or vote it 
down if we do not like it." I say they 
had a right to do cither, though I 
thought, and think yet, as good citi- 
zens, they ought to have gone and voted ; 
but that was their business, and not 
mine. 

Having thus shown that the Conven- 
tion at Lecompton had no power, no au- 
thority, to form and establish a Govern- 
ment, but had power to draft a petition, 
and that petition, if it embodied the will 
of the people of Kansas, ought to bo 
taken as such an exposition of their will, 
yet, if it did not embody their will, 
ought to be rejected — having shown these 
facts, let me proceed, and inquire what 
was the understanding of the people of 
Kansas, when the delegates were elect- 
ed? I understand, from the history of 
the transaction, tliat the people who 



voted for delegates to the Lecompton 
Convention, and those who refused to 
vote — both parties — understood the Ter- 
ritorial act to mean that they were to be 
elected only to frame a Constitution, and 
submit it to the people for their ratifica- 
tion or rejection. I say that both parties 
in that Territory, at the time of the 
election of delegates, so understood the 
object of the Convention. Those who 
voted for delegates did so with the un- 
derstanding that they had no power to 
make a Government, but only to frame 
one for submission ; and those who staid 
away did so Avith the same understanding. 
Now for the evidence. The President 
of the United States tells us, in his mes- 
sage, that he had unequivocally exjjress- 
ed his opinions, in the form of instruc- 
tions to Governor Walker, assuming 
that the Constitution was to be submit- 
ted to the people for ratification. When 
we look into Governor Walker's letter 
of acceptance of the oificc of Governor, 
we find that he stated expressly that he 
accepted it with the understanding that 
the President and his whole Cabinet 
concurred with him, that the Constitu- 
tion, when formed, was to be submitted 
to the people for ratification. Then 
look into the instructions given by the 
President of the United States, through 
General Cass, the Secretary of State, 
to Governor Walker, and you there 
find that the Governor is instructed to 
use the military power to protect the 
polls, when the; Constitution shall be 
submitted to the people of Kansas, for 
their free acceptance or rejection. Trace 
the history a little further, and you will 
find that Governor Walker went to Kan- 
sas and proclaimed, in his inaugural, 
and in his speeches at Topeka and else- 
where, that it was the distinct under- 
standing, not only of himself, but of 
those higher in power than himself — 
meaning the President and his Cabinet — 
that the Constitution was to be submit- 
ted to the people, for their free accept- 
ance or rejection ; and that he would use 
all the power at his command to defeat 
its acceptance by Congress, if it were 
not thus submitted to the vote of the 
people. 



9 



Mr. President, I am not going to 
stop and inquire how far the Nebraska 
bill, which said the people should be left 
perfectly free to form their Constitution 
for themselves, authorized the President, 
or the Cabinet, or Governor Walker, or 
any other Territorial officer, to interfere 
and tell the Convention of Kansas 
whether they should or should not sub- 
mit the question to the people. I am 
not going to stop to inquire how far they 
were authorized to do that, it being my 
opinion that the spirit of the Nebraska 
bill required it to be done. It is suffi- 
cient for my purpose that the Adminis- 
tration of the Federal Government 
unanimously, that the Administration of 
the Territorial Government in all its 
parts, unanimously understood the Ter- 
ritorial law, under which the Convention 
was assembled, to mean that the Con- 
stitution to be formed by that Conven- 
tion should be submitted to the people, 
for ratification or rejection ; and, if not 
confirmed by a majority of the people, 
should be null and void, without coming 
to Congress for approval. 

Not only did the National Govern- 
ment and the Territorial Government so 
understand the law at the time, but, as 
I have already stated, the people of the 
Territory so understood it. As a fur- 
ther evidence on that point, a large 
number, if not a majority, of the dele- 
gates were instructed, in the nominating 
conventions, to submit the Constitution 
to the people for ratification. I know 
that the delegates from Douglas county, 
eight in number, Mr. Calhoun, President 
of the Convention, being among them, 
were not only instructed thus to submit 
the question, but they signed and pub- 
lished, while candidates, a written pledge 
that they would submit it to the people 
for ratification. I know that men high 
in authority, and in the confidence of 
the Territorial and National Govern- 
ments, canvassed every part of Kansas, 
during the election of delegates, and 
each one of them pledged himself to the 
people that no snap judgment was to be 
taken ; that the Constitution was to be 
submitted to the people, for acceptance 
or rejection ; that it would be void un- 



less that was done ; that the Adminis- 
tration would spurn and scorn it as a 
violation of the principles on which it 
came into power, and that a Democratic 
Congress would hurl it from their pres- 
ence, as an insult to Democrats who 
stood pledged to see the people left free 
to form their domestic institutions for 
themselves. 

Not only that, sir, but up to the time 
when the Convention assembled, on the 
1st of September, so far as I can learn, 
it was understood everywhere that the 
Constitution was to be submitted for 
ratification or rejection. They met, 
however, on the 1st of September, and 
adjourned until after the October elec- 
tion. I think it was wise and prudent 
that they should thus have adjourned. 
They did not wish to bring any question 
into that election, which would divide 
the Democratic party, and weaken our 
chances of success in the election. I 
was rejoiced when I saw that they did 
adjourn, so as not to show their hand on 
any question that would divide and dis- 
tract the party, until after the election. 
During that recess, while the Conven- 
tion was adjourned. Governor Ransom, 
the Democratic candidate for Congress, 
running against the present Delegate 
from that Territory, was canvassing 
every part of Kansas in favor of the 
doctrine of submitting the Constitution 
to the people, declaring that the Demo- 
cratic party were in favor of such sub- 
mission, and that it was a slander of the 
Black Republicans to intimate the charge 
that the Democratic party did not in- 
tend to carry out that pledge in good 
faith. Thus, up to the time of the 
meeting of the Convention, in October 
last, the pretence was kept up, the pro- 
fession was openly made, and believed 
by me, and I thought believed by them, 
that the Convention intended to submit 
a Constitution to the people, and not to 
attempt to put government in operation 
without such submission. The election 
being over^ the Democratic party being 
defeated by an overwhelming vote, the 
Opposition having triumphed, and got 
possession of both branches of the Leg- 
islature, and having elected their Ter- 



10 



ritorial Delegate, the Convention assem- 
bled, and then proceeded to complete 
their work. 

Now, let us stop to inquii'C how thej^ 
redeemed the plcd_'e to submit the Con- 
stitution to the people. They first go 
on and make a Constitution. Tlien they 
make a schedule, in which they provide 
that the Constitution, on the l21st of 
December — the present month— shall be 
submitted to all the bona fide inhabit- 
ants of the Territory, on that day, for 
their free acceptance or rejection, in the 
following maimer, to wit : thus acknowl- 
edging that tliey Avere bound to submit 
it to the Avill of the people, conceding 
that they had no right to put it into op- 
eration without submitting it to the peo- 
ple, providing in the instrument that it 
should take effect from and after the 
date of its ratification, and not before ; 
showing that the Constitution derives its 
vitality, in their estimation, not from 
the authority of the Convention, but 
from that vote of the people to which it 
was to be submitted, for their acceptance 
or rejection. How is it to be submit- 
ted ? It shall be submitted in this form : 
" Constitution with Slavery, or Consti- 
tution with no Slavery." All men must 
vote for the Constitution, whether they 
like it or not, in order to be permitted 
to vote for or against Slavery. Thus a 
Constitution made by a Convention that 
had authority to assemble and petition 
for a redress of grievances, but not to 
establish a Government — a Constitution 
made under a pledge of honor that it 
should be submitted to the people before 
it took effect ; a Constitution which pro- 
vides, on it^i face, that it shall have no 
validity, except what it derives from 
such submission — is submitted to the 
people at an election where all men 
are at liberty to come forward freely, 
without hindrance, and vote for it, but 
no man is permitted to I'ccord a vote 
against it. 

That woulil be as fair an election as 
some of the enemies of Napoleon attrib- 
uted to him when he was elected First 
Consul. He is said to have called out 
his troops, and had them reviewed by 
his officers with a speech, patriotic and 



fair in its professions, in which he said 
to them : " Now, my soldiers, you are 
to go to the election and vote freely just 
as you please. If you vote for Na- 
poleon, all is well ; vote against him, 
and you are to be instantly shot." 
That was a fair election. [Laughter.] 
This election is to be equally fair. All 
men in favor of the Constitution may 
vote for it — all men against it shall not 
vote at all. Why not let them vote 
against it? I presume you have asked 
many a man this question. I have 
asked a very large number of the gentle- 
men who framed the Constitution, quite 
a number of the delegates, and a still 
hirger number of persons who are their 
friends, and I have received the same 
answer from every one of them. I 
never received any other answer, and I 
presume we never shall get any other 
answer. What is that? They say, if 
they allowed a negative vote, the Consti- 
tution would have been voted down by 
an overwhelming majority, and hence 
the fellows shall not be allowed to vote 
at all. [Laughter.] 

Mr. President, that may be true. It 
is no part of my purpose to deny the 
proposition that that Constitution would 
have been voted down if submitted to 
the people. I believe it would have 
been voted down by a majority of four 
to one. I am informed by men well 
posted there — Democrats — that it would 
be voted down by ten to one ; some say 
by twenty to one. 

But is it a good reason why you 
should declare it in force, without being 
submitted to the people, merely because 
it would have been voted down by five 
to one if you had submitted it ? What 
does that fact prove? Does it not show 
undeniably that an overwhelming ma- 
jority of the people of Kansas are un- 
alterably opposed to that Constitution? 
Will you force it on them against their 
will, simply because they would have 
voted it down if you had consulted 
them? If you will, are you going to 
force it upon them under the plea of 
leaving them perfectly free to form and 
regulate their domestic institutions in 
their own way? Is that the mode in 



11 



which I am called upon to carry out the 
principle of self-government and popular 
sovereignty in the Territories — to force 
a Constitution on the people against 
their will, in opposition to their protest, 
with a knowledge of the fact, and then 
to assign, as a reason for my tyranny, 
that they would be so obstinate and so 
perverse as to vote down the Constitu- 
tion if I had given them an opportunity 
to be consulted about it 1 

Sir, I deny your right or mine to in- 
quire of these people what their objec- 
tions to that Constitution are. They 
have a right to judge for themselves 
whether they like or dislike it. It is no 
answer to tell me that the Constitution 
is a good one, and unjectionable. It is 
not satisfactory to me to have the Presi- 
dent say in his message that that Con- 
stitution is an admirable one, like all the 
Constitutions of the new States that 
have been recently formed. Whether 
good or bad, whether obnoxious or not, 
is none of my business and none of 
yours. It is their business, and not 
ours. I care not what they have in 
their Constitution, so that it suits them, 
and does not violate the Constitution of 
the United States and the fundamental 
principles of liberty upon which our in- 
stitutions rest. I am not going to argue 
the question whether the banking system 
established in tliat Constitution is wise 
or unwise. It says there shall be no 
monopolies, but there shall be one bank 
of issue in the State, with two branches. 
All I have to say on that point is, if 
they want a banking system, let them 
have it ; if they do not want it, let them 
prohibit it. If they want a iDank with 
two branches, be it so; if they want 
twenty, it is none of my business, and it 
matters not to me whether one of them 
shall be on the north side and the 
other on the south side of the Kaw 
river, or whore they shall be. 

While I have no right to expect to be 
consulted on that point, I do hold tliat 
the people of Kansas have the right to 
be consulted and to decide it, and you 
have no rightful authority to fleprive 
them of that privilege. It is no justifi- 
cation, in my mind, to say that the pro- 



visions for the eligibility for the offices 
of Governor and Lieutenant Governor 
requires twenty years' citizenship in the 
United States. If men thiid< that no 
person should vote or hold office until 
he has been here twenty years, they 
have a right to think so ; and if a ma- 
jority of the people of Kansas think 
that no man of foreign birth should vote 
or hold office unless he has lived there 
twenty years, it is their right to say so, 
and I have no right to interfere with 
them ; it is their business, not mine ; but 
if I lived there, I should not be willing 
to have that provision in the Constitu- 
tion witliout being heard upon the sub- 
ject, and allowed to record my protest 
against it. 

I have nothing to say about their 
system of taxation, in which they have 
gone back and resorted to the old ex- 
ploded system that we tried in Illinois, 
JDut abandoned because we did not like 
it. If they wish to try it, and get tired 
of it, and abandon it, be it so ; but if I 
were a citizen of Kansas, I would profit 
by the experience of Illinois on that 
subject, and defeat it if I could. _ Yet 
I have no objection to their having it 
if they want it; it is their business, not 
mine. 

So it is in regard to the free negroes. 
They provide that no free negro shall be 
permitted to live in Kansas. I suppose 
thej have a right to say so if they 
choose; but if I lived there, I should 
want to vote on that question. We, in 
Illinois, provide that no more shall come 
there. We say to tlie other States, 
" take care of your own free negroes, 
and we will take care of ours." But 
we do not say that the negroes now 
there shall not be permitted to live in 
Illinois ; and I think the people of Kan- 
sas ought to have the right to say 
Avhether they will allow them to live 
there; and if they are not going to do 
so, how th(?y are to dispose of them. 

So you may go on with all the differ- 
ent clauses of the Constitution. They 
may be all right; they may be all 
wrong. That is a question on Avhich 
my opinion is worth nothing. The 
opinion of the wise and patriotic Chief 



12 



Magistrnte of the Uniterl States is not 
worth anything, as against that of the 
people of Kansas, for they have a right 
to judge for themselves ; and neither 
Presidents, nor Senates, nor Houses of 
Representatives, nor any other power 
outside of Kansas, has a rigiit to judge 
for them. Hence it is no justification, 
in my mind, fur the violation of a great 
principk' of self-government, to say that 
the Constitution you are forcing on them 
is not particularly obnoxious, or is ex- 
cellent in its provisions. 

Perhaps, sir, the same thing might be 
said of the celebrated Topeka Constitu- 
tion. I do not recollect its peculiar 
provisions. I know one thing : we Dem- 
ocrats, -we Nebraska men, would not 
even look into it to see what its pro- 
visions were. Why? Because we said 
it was made by a political party, and 
not by the people; that it was made in 
defiance of the authority of Congress ; 
that if it was as pure as the Bible, as 
holy as the ten commandments, yet we 
would not touch it until it wa^ submitted 
to and ratified by the people of Kansas, 
in pursuance of the forms of law. Per- 
haps that Topeka Constitution, but for 
the mode of making it, would have been 
unexceptionable. I do not know; I do 
not care. You have no right to force 
an unexceptionable Constitution on a 
people. It does not mitigate the evil, it 
does not diminish the insult, it does not 
ameliorate the wrong, that you are forcing 
a good thing on them. I am not willing 
to be forced to do that which I would do 
if I were left free to judge and act for 
myself. Hence I assert tliat there is no 
justification to be made for this flagrant 
violation of popular rights in Kansas, on 
the plea that the Constitution which 
they have made is not particularly ob- 
noxious. 

But, sir, the President of the United 
States is really and sincerely of the opin- 
ion that the Slavery clause has been fair- 
ly and impartially submitted to the free 
acceptance or rejection of the people of 
Kansas ; and that, inasmuch as that was 
the exciting and paramount question, if 
they get the right to vote as tliey please 
on that subject, they ought to be satis- 



fied ; and possibly it might be better if 
we would accept it, and put an end to 
the question. Let me ask, sir, is the 
Slavery clause fairly submitted, so that 
the peojde can vote for or against it? 
Suppose I were a citizen of Kansas, and 
should go up to the polls and say, " I 
desire to vote to make Kansas a slave 
State; here is my ballot." They reply 
to me, " Mr. Douglas, just vote for that 
Constitution first, if you please." " Oh, 
no ! " I answer, " I cannot vote for ttiat 
Constitution conscientiously. I am op- 
posed to the clause by which you locate 
certain railroads in such a way as to 
sacrifice my county and my part of the 
State. I am opposed to that banking 
system. I am opposed to this Know- 
Nothing or American clause in the Con- 
stitution, about the qualification for of- 
fice. I cannot vote for it." Then they 
answer, " You shall not vote on making 
it a slave State." I then say, " I want 
to make it a free State." They reply, 
" Vote for that Constitution first, and 
then you can vote to make it a free 
State; otherwise you cannot." Thus 
they disqualify every free-State man 
who will not first vote for the Constitu- 
tion. They disqualify every slave-State 
man who will not first vote for the Con- 
stitution. No matter whether or not the 
voters state that they cannot conscien- 
tiously vote for those provisions, they 
reply, " You cannot vote for or against 
Slavery here. Take the Constitution as 
we have made it, take the elective fran- 
chise as we have established it, take the 
banking S3'stem as we have dictated it, 
take the railroad lines as Ave have loca- 
ted them, take the judiciary system as 
we have formed it — take it all, as we 
have fixed it to suit ourselves — and ask 
no questions, but vote for it, or you shall 
not vote either for a slave or free State." 
In other words, the legal effect of the 
schedule is this : all those Avho are in 
favor of this Constitution may vote for 
or against Slavery, as the}' please ; but 
all those who are against this Constitu- 
tion are disfranchised, and shall not vote 
at all. That is the mode in which the 
Slavery proposition is submitted. Eve- 
ry man opposed to the Constitution is 



13 



disfranchised on the Shivery clause. 
How many are they'? They tell you 
there is a majority, for they say the Con- 
stitution will be voted down instantly, 
by an overwhelming majority, if you 
allow a negative vote. This shows that 
a majority are against it. They dis- 
qualify and disfranchise every man who 
is against it, thus referring the Slavery 
clause to a minority of the people of 
Kansas, and leaving that minority free 
to vote for or against the Slavery clause, 
as they choose. 

Let me ask you if that is a fair mode 
of submitting the Slavery clause ? Does 
that mode of submitting that particular 
clause leave the people perfectly free to 
vote for or against Slavery, as they 
choose ? Am I free to vote as I choose 
on the Slavery question, if you tell me 
I shall not vote on it until I vote for the 
Maine liquor law 1 Am I free to vote 
on the Slavery question, if you tell me 
that I shall not vote either way until I 
vote for a bank? Is it freedom of elec- 
tion to make your right to vote upon one 
question depend upon the mode in which 
you are going to vote on some other 
question which has no connection with 
it? Is that freedom of election? Is 
that the great fundamental principle of 
self-government, for which we combined 
and struggled, in this body, and through- 
out the country, to establish as the rule 
of action in all time to come ? 

The President of the United States 
has made some remarks in his message 
which it strikes me it would be very ap- 
propriate to read in this connection. He 
says : 

" The friends and supporters of the 

* Nebraska and Kansas act, when strug- 
' gling on a recent occasion to sustain 
' its Avisc provisions before the great 
' tribunal of the American people, 
' never differed about its true meaning 
' on this subject. Everywhere through- 
' out the Union, they publicly pledged 
' their faith and honor that they would 

* cheerfully submit the question of Sla- 
' very to the decision of the bona fide 
' people of Kansas, without any restric- 
' tion or qualification whatever. All 
' were cordially united upon the great 



' doctrine of popular sovereignty, which 
' is the vital principle of our free insti- 
' tutions." 

Mark this : 

" Had it then been insinuated, from 
' any quarter, that it would have been 
' a suflScient compliance with the requi- 
' sition of the organic law for the mem- 
' bers of a Convention, thereafter to be 
' elected, to withhold a question of Sla- 
' very from the people, and to substitute 
' their own will for that of a Icgally-as- 
' certained majority of their constitu- 
' ents, this would have been instantly re- 
' jected." 

Yes, sir; and I will add, further, had 
it been then intimated from any quarter, 
and believed by the American people, 
that we would have submitted the Sla- 
very clause in such a manner as to com- 
pel a man to vote for that which his con- 
science did not approve, in order to vote 
on the Slavery clause, not only would 
the idea have been rejected, but the 
Democratic candidate for the Presidency 
would have been rejected, and every 
man who backed him would have been 
rejected too. 

The President tells us in his message 
that the whole party pledged our faith 
and our honor that the Slavery question 
should be submitted to the people, with- 
out any restriction or qualification what- 
ever. Does this schedule submit it 
without qualification 1 It qualifies it by 
saying, " You may vote on Slavery if 
you will vote for the Constitution ; but 
you shall not do so without doing that." 
That is a very important qualification — 
a qualification that controls a man's 
vote, and his action, and his conscience, 
if he is an honest man — a qualification 
confessedly in violation of- our platform. 
We are told by the President that our 
faith and our honor are pledged that the 
Slavery clause should be submitted with- 
out qualification of any kind whatever ; 
and now am I to be called upon to forfeiit 
my faith and my honor, in order to ena- 
ble a small minority of the people of 
Kansas to defraud the majority of that 
people out of their elective franchise? 
Sir, my honor is pledged ; and before it 
shall be tarnished, I will take whatever 



14 



consequences personal to my myself may 
come ; but never ask me to do an act 
which the President, in his message, has 
said is a forfeiture of faith, a violation 
of honor, and that merely for the ex{)e- 
diency of saving the party. I will go 
as far as any of you to save the party. 
I have as much heart in the groat cause 
that binds us together as a party, as any 
man living. I will sacrifice anything 
short of principle and honor, for the 
peace of the party ; but if the party will 
not stand by its principles, its faith, its 
pledges, I Avill stand there, and abide 
whatever cons<,'quences may result from 
the position. 

Let nie ask you, why force this Con- 
stitution down the throats of the people 
of Kan«as, in opposition to their wishes 
and in violation of our pledges. What 
great o)>ject is to be attained? Cut 
bono ? What are you to gain by 
it 1 Will you sustain the party by vio- 
lating its principles'? Do you propose 
to keep the party united by forcing a 
division? Stand by the doctrine that 
leaves the people perfectly free to form 
and regulate their institutions for them- 
selves, in their own way, and your party 
will be united and irresistible in power. 
Abandon that great principle, and the 
party is not worth saving, and cannot be 
saved after it shall be violated. I trust 
we are not to be rushed upon this ques- 
tion. Why shall it be done? Wiio is 
to bo benefited ? Is the South to be the 
gainer ? Is the North to be the gainer ? 
Neither the North nor the South has the 
right to gain a sectional advantage by 
trickery or fraud. 

But I am bcseeched to wait until I 
hear from the election, on the 21st of 
December. I am told that perhaps that 
will put it all right, and will save the 
whole difficulty. How can it? Perhaps 
there may be a large vote. There may 
be a large vote returned. [Laughter.] 
But I deny that it is possible to have a 
fair vote on the Slavery clause ; and I 
say that it is not possible to have any 
vote on the Constitution. Why wait for 
the mockery of an election, when it is 
provided, unalterably, that tho people 



cannot vote — when the majority are dis- 
franchised ? 

But I am told on all sides. " Oh, just 
wait ; the Pro-Slavery clause will be 
voted down." That does not obviate 
any of my objections ; it does not di- 
minish any of them. You have no more 
right to force a free-State Constitution 
on Kansas than a slave-State Constitu- 
tion. If Kansas wants a slave-State 
Constitution, she has a right to it ; if she 
wants a free-State Constitution, she has 
a right to it. It is none of my business 
which way the Slavery clause is decided. 
I care not whether it is voted down or 
voted up. Do you suppose, after the 
pledges of my honor that I would go for 
that principle, and leave the people to 
vote as they choose, that I would now 
degrade myself by voting one way if the 
Slavery clause be voted down, and an- 
other way if it be voted up ? I care not 
how that vote may stand. I take it for 
granted that it will be voted out. I 
think I have seen enough in the last 
three days to make it certain that it will 
be returned out, no matter how the vote 
may stand. [Laughter.] 

Sir, I am opposed to that concern, be- 
cause it looks to me like a system of 
trickery and jugglery to defeat the fair 
expression of the Avill of the people. 
There is no necessity for crowding this 
measure, so unfair, so unjust as it is in 
all its aspects, upon us. Why can we 
not now do what we proposed to do in 
the last Congress? We then voted 
through the Senate an enabhng act. 
called " the Toombs bill," believed to be 
just and fair in all its provisions, pro- 
nounced to be almost perfect by the 
Senator from New Hampshire, [Mr. 
Hale,] only he did not like the man, 
then President of the United States, 
who would have to make the appoint- 
ments. Why can we not take that bill, 
and, out of compliment to the Presi- 
dent, add to it a clause taken from the 
Minnesota act, which he thinks should 
be a general rule, requiring the Consti- 
tution to be submitted to the people, 
and pass that ? That unites the party. 
You all voted, with me, for that bill, at 
the last Congress. Why not stand by 



15 



the same bill now? Ignore Lecompton, 
ignore Topeka ; treat both those party 
movements as irregular and void ; pass 
a fair bill — the one that we framed our- 
selves when we were acting as a unit ; 
have a fair election — and you wull have 
peace in the Democratic party, and 
peace throughout the country, in ninety 
days. The people want a fair vote. 
They never will be satisfied without it. 
They never should be satisfied without 
a fair vote on their Constitution. 

If the Toombs bill does not suit my 
friends, take the Minnesota bill of the 
last session — the one so much com- 
mended by the President in his message 
as a model. Let us pass that as an en- 
abling act, and allow the people of all 
parties to come together and have a fair 
vote, and I will go for it. Frame any 
other bill that secures a fair, honest 
vote, to men of all parties, and carries 
out the pledge that the people shall be 
left free to decide on their domestic in- 
stitutions for themselves, and I will go 
with you with pleasure, and with all the 



energy I may possess. But if this Con- 
stitution is to be forced down our 
throats, in violation of the fundamental 
principle of free government, under a 
mode of submission that is a mofckery 
and insult, I will resist it to the last. I 
have no fear of any party associations 
being severed. I should regret any 
social or political estrangement, even 
temporarily ; but if it must be, if I can- 
not act with you and preserve my faith 
and my honor, I will stand on the great 
principle of popular sovereignty, which 
declares the right of all people to be left 
perfectly free to form and regulate their 
domestic institutions in their own way. 
I will follow that principle wdierever its 
logical consequences may take me, and 
I Avill endeavor to defend it against 
assault from any and all quarters. No 
mortal man shall be responsible for my 
action but myself. By my action I will 
compromit no man. 

[At the conclusion of the honorable gentle- 
naan's speech, loud applause and clapping of 
hands resounded through the crowded galleries.] 



WASHINGTON, D. C. 

BUELL & BLANCHARD, PRINTERS. 
\ 1858. 



/r^ 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



016 085 229 A ^ 




. \ 



-^r 



v^ / 



